|
WEEKLY
Volume 2 Number 35
27 January 2008
Mistakes in the Bible?
(Message delivered by Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo at the True Life Church, Sep
9, 07)
A young believer once asked his pastor
this question, “Pastor, are there any mistakes in the Bible?” The pastor
assures the young believer with what he claims to be an “honest” answer,
“There are no mistakes in the Bible that should cause you any worry.”
Such an answer is hardly honest but the hissing of the old serpent,
“Yea, hath God said?” (Gen 3:1).
As faithful believers, we affirm
without doubt the Bible to be totally infallible and inerrant, our sole
and supreme authority of faith and practice. We affirm the Verbal
Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the
Holy Scriptures and identify VPI and VPP Texts to be the Hebrew
Masoretic and Greek Received Texts on which the Reformation Bible—the
King James Bible—is based. But “what if some did not believe? shall
their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea,
let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou
mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou
art judged.” (Rom 3:3-4).
Unbelief of VPI and/or VPP has caused
some to fall short of believing that the Bible is 100% perfect, without
any mistake. “Where are the mistakes?” you ask. Let us look at a few of
the so-called “mistakes,” and with the logic of faith, the Christian who
loves the Lord and His Word will see that they are not at all mistakes.
Forty-two or
Twenty-two?
Those who deny VPP believe that some
words of God have been lost and remain lost leading to a “scribal error”
view of the OT Scriptures. For instance, W Edward Glenny denies that God
has perfectly preserved His Word so that no words have been lost. He
says, “The evidence from the OT text suggests that such is not the case.
We might have lost a few words …” (One Bible Only?, p121).
Based on his “lost words” view of the Bible, he was quick to point out
“obvious discrepancies” in the OT like 2 Chronicles 22:2, and
pontificates, “These obvious discrepancies in the KJV and the
Hebrew manuscripts on which it is based show that none of them
perfectly preserved the inspired autographa.” (One Bible Only?,
p115).
Now, know that 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads
“forty-two” in the KJV. A number of the modern versions like the NASV,
NIV, and ESV read “twenty-two” instead. So which is the original,
inspired reading: “forty-two” (in KJV), or “twenty-two” (in NASV, NIV,
and ESV)? In making such a textual decision, we must have a perfect
standard, and that infallible and inerrant standard is the inspired and
preserved Hebrew Scripture, and not any translation ancient or modern.
It is significant to note that every
single Hebrew manuscript reads “forty-two” (arebba’im wushetha’im)
in 2 Chronicles 22:2. There is no evidence of lost words—every word to
the letter is preserved, and reads precisely as “forty-two” as
accurately translated in the KJV. If every Hebrew manuscript reads
“forty-two” in 2 Chronicles 22:2, then on what basis do the NASV, NIV,
and ESV change it to “twenty-two”? They change “forty-two” to
“twenty-two” on the basis of the Septuagint (LXX) which is a Greek
version of the Hebrew Scripture just like the NIV is an English version
of it. In other words, they use a version or translation to correct the
original Hebrew text! This is “Ruckmanism” no less!
A godly approach is one that
presupposes the present infallibility and inerrancy of God’s Word not
only when it speaks on salvation, but also when it speaks on history,
geography or science. “Let God be true, but every man a liar”
(Rom 3:4). Such a godly approach to difficult passages seeks to compare
(not correct) Scripture with Scripture. There are two possible solutions
to the so-called “problem” or “error” in 2 Chronicles 22:2. “Forty-two”
could be either (1) Ahaziah’s years counted from the beginning of the
dynasty founded by Omri, or (2) the year in which Ahaziah was actually
seated as king though anointed as one at “twenty-two” (2 Kgs 8:26).
Whatever the answer may be, the truth and fact is: the inspired and
preserved Hebrew reading in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is “forty-two” and not
“twenty-two,” and no man has the right to change or correct God’s Word
by “conjectural emendation,” taking heed to the serious warning not to
add to or subtract from the Holy Scriptures (Rev 22:18-19).
One Year or 30/40/…
Years?
Now, let us look at the next text
which is 1 Samuel 13:1 which the KJV translates as, “Saul reigned one
year.” But the other versions read quite differently. The NASV has,
“Saul was forty years old when he began to reign;” the NIV has,
“Saul was thirty years old when he became king;” and the RSV and
ESV has, “Saul was … years old when he began to reign.” Which of the
above is correct? The only way whereby we can ascertain the correct
reading is to go to the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible since day one
reads Ben-shanah Shaoul, literally, “A son of a year (was) Saul,”
or idiomatically, “Saul was a year old.”
Now, the difficulty is: How could Saul
be only a year old when he began to reign? Scholars and translators who
do not believe in the jot-and-tittle preservation of Scripture say that
this is an actual discrepancy in the Hebrew Text which they attribute to
a “scribal error.” This is why Michael Harding wrote, “[I]n 1 Samuel
13:1-2 the Masoretic Text states that Saul was one year of age (ben-shanah—literally
“son of a year”) … Some ancient Greek manuscripts [ie, translations or
versions]… read “thirty years” instead of “one year,” … I believe the
original Hebrew text also reads “thirty,” even though we do not
currently possess a Hebrew manuscript with that reading.” (God’s
Word in Our Hands, pp360-361).
Harding and those like him who deny
that God has preserved every jot and tittle of His inspired words (Matt
5:18) conclude that a word is lost and 1 Samuel 13:1 contains a “scribal
error” even when there is no such error to begin with. Instead of
attributing error to the translation (NASV, NIV, RSV, ESV), they rather
fault the inspired and preserved Hebrew Text and treat it as an actual
discrepancy even when there is absolutely none. This has caused many
Bible believers to doubt God’s Word: Do we really have God’s infallible
and inerrant Word in our hands? Many are indeed stumbled by such
allegations of error in the Bible, and are questioning whether they can
really trust the Scriptures at all if there is no such thing as a
complete and perfect Word of God today.
It must be categorically stated that
there is no error at all in the Hebrew Text and no mistake also in the
KJV which translated 1 Samuel 13:1 accurately. So how do we explain 1
Samuel 13:1? A faithful explanation is offered by Matthew Poole who
wrote, “[Saul] had now reigned one year, from his first election at
Mizpeh, in which time these things were done, which are recorded in
chap. xi., xii., to wit, peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2 Sam.
ii.10.”
In other words, the year of Saul was
calculated not from the time of his birth but from his appointment
as king; “Saul was a year old into his reign.” This
meaning is supported by the Geneva Bible which reads, “Saul now had
beene King one yeere.” Rest assured, there is no mistake in the
Hebrew Text and in the KJV here. God has indeed inspired and preserved
His OT words perfectly so that we might have an infallible, inerrant OT
Bible in our hands today.
Nebuchadnezzar
or Nebuchadrezzar?
These two names—Nebuchadnezzar and
Nebuchadrezzar—are found in Jeremiah 29 verse 3 and verse 21
respectively to refer to the same king. Bible and Truth deniers who do
not believe in VPI and/or VPP are quick to conclude that the Bible here
is in error; they call it a spelling or a scribal error.
But we who believe in the present
perfection and absolute authority of the Scriptures have always believed
and defended the total inerrancy of Scripture, its VPI and VPP, based on
the logic of faith. So, how do we explain the two spellings, one with an
“n” and the other with an “r.” It is really a simple solution requiring
childlike faith on God’s pure and perfect words (Matt 4:4, Rom 3:4, Heb
11:3, 6). The Bible being historically true and accurate would have us
know that there were two ways of spelling the name of the Babylonian
king. He could either be called Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar. It is
significant to note that the switch from “r” to “n” is “not uncommon” in
Semitic languages (eg, Benhadad and Barhadad). “Nebuchadnezzar” then,
would be the Hebrew spelling, and “Nebuchadrezzar” the Aramaic spelling
(re: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, sv,
“Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadrezzar”). A modern-day example would be
Singapore (English) and Singapura (Malay)—both are correct spellings
(not scribal errors) and refer to the same country.
Big Fish or
Whale?
There are those who fault KJV for
calling the “fish” that swallowed Jonah a “whale” for a whale they say
is no fish but mammal. Were the translators mistaken and not intelligent
enough to know that a fish is no mammal?
We do not believe there is any
translation mistake here. The technical or specific word for “fish” in
the Greek is ichthus. But here in Matthew 12:40, the Greek word
is not ichthus but ketos (the equivalent to the Hebrew
haddag) which can mean either “a large fish” or “a huge sea
creature.” A whale though a mammal and not technically a “fish” (ichthus)
is nevertheless a sea creature and falls within the generic usage of
ketos. Spiros Zodhiates commented, “Jon 1:17 tells us that God
prepared a great fish. He, who can do anything, could have made the fish
capable of swallowing Jonah, preserving him in its belly and then
casting him out again alive. God does not need to be assisted by natural
possibilities to perform a miracle. This term was in that day, as it is
today, common parlance for any kind of aquatic creature.
Its non-technical usage would allow for a mammal such as a whale and
would therefore contain no error.” (The Complete Word Study
Dictionary: New Testament, sv “ketos.”). So, it is a
misconception to think that the word ketos cannot refer to a
sea mammal like the whale. It is important to know that the word
ketos is a general word for any kind of creature that
lives in the sea, whether fish, shark, dolphin, or whale. The
context determines how the word is to be used, and the translation of
ketos as “whale” in the KJV is entirely valid and accurate.
Hence, no error in the Greek, and no error in the English translation,
no error in God’s miraculous work, and no error in God’s infallible
Word.
We, Brisbane BPC, have the same
stand with that of True Life BPC and FEBC, affirming God’s forever
infallible and inerrant, 100% inspired and 100% preserved words. There
are no mistakes in the Bible!
Top
/ Back
|
